Tempe Redflex Cams All About the Money

Tom Ryff, Tempe Police Chief, Camera Apologist, and Tragedy Exploiter Extraordinaire


Ignoring an alarming increase in fatalities despite a nationwide downward trend, the City of Tempe is preparing to give millions more to private automated ticketing contractor Redflex:

“A few months ago Tempe’s procurement office noticed the city was reaching that $1.2 million cap it budgeted for Redflex. On Thursday the City Council is set to review a staff request to increase that cap by about $2.9 million to about $4.2 million. That will allow the city to pay Redflex its share of ticket revenue for the remainder of the contract.”

Never missing an opportunity to take advantage of a tragedy for political gain, Tempe’s police chief muddied the water with this spew:

[Chief Tom Ryff] said the public shares a responsibility in keeping the photo-camera debate civil. He also wanted to remind residents that the cameras are used to reduce speed, accidents and save lives. If people would drive the speed limit, he said the photo system would become obsolete. “It really is our community and our society that have the responsibility to help keep the community safe,” he said. Ryff said he hoped that residents would maintain their calm as Tempe reviews its Redflex contract.

Remain calm, folks. Nothing to see here, move right along… Never mind that sucking sound of your money going to Australia.

Once again, the Arizona Republic intentionally misleads the public by implying that the photo radar scheme has resulted in safer streets:

Tempe Police have reported a 16-percent reduction in motor-vehicle crashes throughout the city since the installation of the [photo radar] system.

Reality check: “…Injury crashes decreased only 1.84% and fatality crashes increased 43%.”

Funny how the same reporter who put out the first piece of yellow journalism is the same one responsible for this one: Dianna M. Náñez.

87 Responses to Tempe Redflex Cams All About the Money

  1. As if you need more proof, the National Motorists’ Association just released a report showing that cameras have cost Arizon 28 lives. http://photoradarscam.wordpress.com/2009/04/23/new-study-arizona-ticket-cameras-cost-28-lives/

  2. Chuck says:

    I quit reading the Arizona Republic and most other newspapers in the late 1980s and my life does not seem to have suffered for that. Thank goodness now for the Internet (I was an early adopter first browsing the web in text mode on a Unix machine about 1992 or so). Now one can be informed, fact check, compare stories, and not be saddled with the biases and slants of The Arizona Daily Fishwrap or any other newspaper.

    After we get rid of the “scameras” we should start to work on sending Tom Ryff and Roger Vanderpool packing. Maybe the Taliban needs a couple of overzealous traffic cops?

  3. guttersn1pe says:

    I was thinking that after the cameras are gone, we focus on getting rid of the Arizona Republic. By far, it’s the worst newspaper I’ve ever read.

  4. Pete B says:

    No, the Arizona Red Star (I mean Daily Star) is much worse. They lie without blinking.

  5. guttersn1pe says:

    I haven’t read that one. Thanks for the head’s up!

  6. I'm Back says:

    What are you guys talking about? I love going to AZCentral.com to look at all the skanky pics from Spring Break, read about what Realtors on Commission have to say about economics and browse the latest news brought to you by Redflex/ATS/DPS. Now that’s what a newspaper should be!!

  7. Joe says:

    I’m back:

    Bravo to you!

    I have heard from insiders that The Republic is in dire straights (as many other papers are), but that since they are owned by Gannett, they have better funding that keeps them propped up longer. But since they have cut the pay of their employees, it pretty much means they will probably fail within the next two years.

    I suppose that’s good for those of us that attack their substandard “standards” for journalism, but it will also mean bad things in terms of rooting-out government corruption.

  8. Zebra says:

    Investigative journalism at the Arizona Daily Star consists of passing along DPS and TPD press releases.

    Word for word.

  9. I'm Back says:

    That paper is a joke. At least they allow comments online for most of their articles so that the rest of us can point out typos, deceptive headlines and story inconsistencies. That’s about the best thing they’ve got going over there.

  10. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    well its not to see that none of you are happy with the main stream media…. i would imagine that the new times type of papers you are all fans of!!

    however, i am glad to see that joe has “insiders” with info at the republic!! i wonder where joe studied journalism at? cause with all his knowledge.he must be college educated in that field!!

  11. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:


    Phoenix, AZ
    1,121 Volunteers


    Check out this Meetup Group →

    stacey and gutter…. mexico is not too far away… bye bye!!!

  12. A Question says:

    A question. I know that over and over it has been cited of the “43%” increase in fatalities in Tempe comparing 2007 to 2008. Why is it that no one will actually show the raw numbers in a headline? Is it that a change from 7 fatalities to 10 fatalities just doesn’t pack the same punch as saying a 43% increase.

    What bothers me is that of those 10 fatalities that it increased in 2008, I can remember 2 off the top of my head that were obviously not caused by the presence of photo enforcement. Namely one accident on Hardy and University where a woman was struck by a box truck making a right turn. No speed involved, no camera flash to distract the driver, just a driver not aware of his surroundings and a pedestrian in a crosswalk at the wrong place.

    Then there is the Hit and Run of another person late night by a possible DUI driver. I think the location was Rural near US60. Again, no camera in the picture, no flash to distract the driver. No slamming on breaks and causing a fatal crash, just a DUI driver hitting a pedestrian and leaving the scene in hopes of not getting caught for a dui.

    Don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to say that a rise in fatalities is a good thing. I’m just saying that stupid people will do stupid things. No matter if there is a cop on the street, or a camera. And an added 3 fatalities does not equal a failure of a camera system. Especially when looking at all other types of accidents in the same timespan, the number of crashes has dropped.

  13. Glyph says:

    @A Question…

    You make a good point. 10 fatalities in a year, up from 7 the previous year, just doesn’t sound as urgent as “43% increase in fatalities.” But that’s how Tempe PD has chosen to play the game.

    If you look at their numbers, you’ll see that accidents are down 16%. If you don’t know the raw data, then you think a 16% improvement is pretty darn good. But they tout the percentage because the raw data isn’t that impressive. Of the three intersections cited in the study, one had no change in the amount of accidents. The second intersection had 60 accidents, down from 63 the year before. The third intersection had 78 accidents, down from 94 the year before. Do the math and you see that’s 19 fewer accidents, with no data on injuries or the cause of the accident.
    Now for the same time frame, the city’s photo enforcement program issues 215,085 ‘tickets.’ This is in a town with a projected 2010 population of 174,769. City leaders are counting on that cash flow, so they now have to find ways to justify a program that has to mail out over eleven thousand ‘tickets’ for every accident that it’s supposed to have prevented.
    In these tough economic times, and in a climate hostile to the idea of photo enforcement, you have to be creative to make these numbers look good. Say something like “We had nineteen fewer accidents than last year, but three more deaths than last year, and mailed out almost a quarter million tickets,” and the public will eat you alive. But offer up something like a 16% decrease in accidents, and gloss over the extra fatalities with rationalizations like your “hit and run, had nothing to do with the cameras, people do stupid things” arguements, and all of a sudden the program looks pretty effective to anyone who’s not paying close attention.

    So, in answer to your question… If Tempe is going to use shiny percentages instead of boring raw data, then CameraFRAUD.com will use shiny percentages instead of boring raw data.

  14. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    you mean misleading percetages !!!

    a question- let me clue you in !! this site will never accept anything other than cameras cause accidents in their fight !!! they make all sorts of excuses… none that are valid… such as “flashes” at night!! give me a break, the cam is not even pointed right at them…. slamming of brakes… what about when drivers see a cop of the road.. they do that when they see them,,, are we going to remove all the cops!!!

    you hit it right on the head.. some people drive stupid… some do it on purpose, and some cause they are stupid!!!

    • Marbro says:

      Your childish, exaggerated remarks really explain alot about you. Education is the key in preventing many accidents. A great majority of the citizens in this country own guns, you don’t see radom killings around early morning or evening rush hour traffic invlolving guns do you. Its all about education. I seriosly doubt that cameras are the way to go.

  15. Question Again says:


    I see what you are getting at. To be honest, I had not seen the camera site stats before, just the overall stats of responded 961/962/963 incidents. But there is one thing that still gets to me. Even though looking at the crash stats, the safety effects appear to be small, they still are a positive change. 19 fewer accidents change at the camera sites does not make the system a failure.

    I look at the average speeds. I don’t know about you, but my everyday commute, I can easily tell that average speeds have reduced from a year ago. My commute to and from work has drastically improved in time spent on the road. Now I’m not so naive as to think the cameras are the only factor in achieving this, but they are a large contributing factor.

    Some people will slow down for the camera, and then speed up until the next one. But more and more people, (me included), will simply set the cruise control and keep it a constant speed that is lower than the violation point. And this factor, along with less people on the roadway, has made the roads less conjested than a year ago.

    Unlike you (I assume) I do not feel the cameras are an intrusion. I know that if I follow the law while on the road, I will not receive a ticket. And if there is an error where I receive a ticket, I know that I have all the information on how to clear up the error. So adding more cameras will not affect my life at all other than putting more money into other government programs paid by people who have broken the established law.

  16. guttersn1pe says:

    Really LAB – “main stream media”. You don’t get out much, do you? If you want to read a real paper, pick up the LA or NY Times.

    Also, why are you posting responses here to the message board on the meet-up site? Were you banned from posting over there???

  17. Glyph says:

    Well Question,

    This is where the debate begins. Is it ok to trample the civil liberties of ‘bad people’ (speeders and redlight runners)? Can we trust a foreign company, with no oversight, who benefits financially from every tickect paid, to be honest and truthfulin how it calibrates its’ equipment and issues tickets? Even after that company has demonstrated poor corporate citizenship?

    If you’re willing to make those assumptions, and be that trusting, then by all means set your cruise control safe in the knowledge that you’re obeying the speed limit.

    But when the day comes that the camera company chooses to send you a dishonest ticket (because more Law A Biding citizens means less revenue), or when the equipment or operators make an error (over 200K tickets per year? it’s reasonable to expect there would be some margin of error), please think of us when your insistence that you never speed falls on deaf ears.

  18. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    a question…. here is where they get out there tin hats and start spouting off about how the government is intruding on our lives… and how unconstitutional the cameras are!!! get ready they are going to dp everything they can to convert you and sometime later to day or tomorrow.. those that wear the really shiney tin hats will start calling you a sheep and how you just do what you are told to do!!! good luck!!

    yes gutterball… i was banned from the vip room… but luckily for cut and paste i can move the lies out here!!!

    glyph… there are many foreign companies doing business in the US… you all make it sound like they are the first ones!!!

  19. Question Again,
    Normally 19 fewer accident would be a good thing. However, it’s been widely publicized that there is MUCH less driving in 2008 vs. 2007, and there was a national trend showing a big reductioni in accidents, a majority of which didn’t have cameras. So if Tempe were to follow the national trend, injuries and accidents were supposed to drop. Without a proper study with control sites and lots of extra data, we’ll never know what the rate would have been without the cameras; however, in the absencse of data I think it is a reasonable conclusion that the effect of the cameras was break-even to slightly negative.

    Regarding your comment about people going slower, you have some commonly held misperceptions about speed and danger. First of all, fewer than 5% of all accidents are caused by exceeding the posted limit. I ask you to reference this page by ADOT: http://www.dot.state.az.us/Highways/Traffic/Speed.asp which points out these widely held misconceptions:

    1. Speed limit signs will slow the speed of traffic.
    2. Speed limit signs will decrease the accident rate and increase safety.
    3. Raising a posted speed limit will cause an increase in the speed of traffic.
    Before and After” studies consistently demonstrate that there are no significant changes in traffic speeds following the posting of new or revised speed limits.

    • Mark S says:

      Driver inattention is now the largest cause of accidents. People talking on the phone, eating, makeup, etc. Of the driver inattention, lane violations would be on top.

      I like the way the media states for every accident: “Speed was a factor in the accident”. It was a factor, but a majority of the time it WAS NOT the cause.

      Speed will always be stated as a factor in any accident where there were major injuries or death. You could be going 5MPH, run someone over and kill them and they will state that speed was a factor.

      It is more like the difference in speed between the opjects that is the factor.

      • Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

        i highly doubt that an accident with speed at 5 mph would be considered a factor!!or even mentioned!! that is a really stupid comment…

      • Mark S, Yes, exactly. But the same people who are so pro-camera have yet to introduce laws to go after using cell phones or other distracting activities.

        Wonder why? Could it be that it wouldn’t be a cash cow? Cost too much to enforce? Speed cams and DUI laws are all about safety, but they won’t even introduce a bill to ban cell phone driving?

      • Marbro says:

        I totally agree PhotoRadarScam.
        Law A Bidingcitizen, going 5 mph determined a little girls fate when she was ran over by daddy in the driveway of their own home. Why because his vehicle was too high.

  20. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    a question- and next scam will tell you that a death asscoaited with a gun is the guns fault…. not the person that held the gun!!! just as they blame everything on the cameras…. and since we dont have any “raw” data about the widely held misconception that people drove MUCH less in 2007 than 2008 ( thats a joke) …. it is just an opinion… but one that is often mentioned by the anti camera crowd !!!

  21. Libertad! says:

    Public safety shouldn’t be the debate at all. If anything, the safety of the devices should be in question simply because it promotes abrupt changes in speed around the devices which can cause less decisive drivers to slam on their brakes (the squirrel crosses the road scenario.)

    But what is fundamentally wrong is the continual fleecing of the tax payer by local, state and federal entities by partnering with private enterprise. I repeat taxpayer funded agencies partnering with private enterprise is fundamentally wrong.

    A private enterprise is concerned with one thing in mind, and that is to remain competitive and profitable. Now couple that with any government agency partnering with competitive and profitable entities should be labeled and defined as opportunism.

    Opportunism:(noun) the art, policy, or practice of taking advantage of opportunities or circumstances often with little regard for principles or consequences(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opportunism)

    Elected officials are now part of this neo-culture to fleece tax payers at any expense to solidify their legacies and mainly to send our hard monies to corporations both domestic and abroad(http://www.morganstanley.com/about/press/articles/045f9d28-c142-11dd-b3a2-8df06e0b6eda.html)

    It is the mentality of these traitors (and there legions of them) to assume that we are the worker bees unintelligent and benign, Our simple minds riddled in serfdom cannot and will not challenge their superior minds because they are our man-gods. They’ve become untouchable in their minds. Elitist complex? Yes!

    What ever happened to principals? There mom and dads should be shamed beyond the grave for their treason but to tell you the truth its our faults.

    While we sleep and high five at the ball game, while we hang at the edge of our seats to see who is the next man/woman god on American Idol these serpents continually slither in their viperous pit of 18th hole deals, back room handshakes and unseen plunder to chip away at our sovereignty (if we have any left.)

    • Pro-Camera says:

      I didn’t expect to post much on here so I previously used the name “A Question” and “Question Again”. I’m now picking a name that hopefully can tie in my comments to one name in the future.

      Lbertad! said:
      “I reapeat tax payer funded agencies partnering with private enterprises is fundamentally wrong.”

      So I guess we should just put Lockheed-Martin out of business in making airplanes and missles. I mean, they are making a profit by supplying the military. The more people attack us, the more funding we give to the military to buy more planes, the more Lockheed-Martin makes in filling those orders. So in effect (in your eyes), Lockheed Martin is encouraging and probably promoting attacks on the US to drum up support for new planes to be built.

      Is that your logic?

      Libertad! also said”
      “What ever happened to principals? Their mom and dad should be shamed beyond the grave for their treason but to tell you the truth, it’s our faults.”

      Principals. Sorry, but my priciples are not held in hindering enforcement of laws because a private entity may be making money when violators break established laws. My principles lie where law enforcement should be given all the tools at hand to enforce the laws. And Photo enforcement is a valuable and efficient tool in enforcing speed and traffic signal laws.

      People have said on this thread that speed doesn’t cause accidents. I agree. Someone that is speeding down the freeway, and obeying all other laws, they will most likely not cause an accident. Problem is, when you add speed into the mix of an already messed up public that includes cell phone talkers, and McDonalds eaters, and Starbucks drinkers, and Rice Burner racers, then add in the “Safe Driver” that likes to go 85 instead of 65, all they are is adding fuel to the fire.

      The common sense item I am talking about is “Reaction Time”. For all the speeders that have taken a “Defensive Driving” class to get out of a ticket, they talk about it. The faster you go, the less time you have to react to adverse conditions. So when you have the idiot eating a big mac and the “Special Sauce” drips into his lap, when he looks down and tries to wipe it off and swerves in to your lane, if going 85, you have that much less reaction time to avoid an accident.

      I’m not trying to say that speed causes accidents, it just makes avoidable accidents impossible to avoid. And the cameras, along with lower volume of drivers, and people being more conscious about fuel milage, the average speeds have went down. The cameras were not the only cause of this, but they were a major contributor, unlike many “Anti-camera” people like to claim. And lower speeds reduces the severity of unavoidable accidents. 65mph and 85mph, that difference can very well be the difference in skidding to a stop and a rollover.

      • Pro-Camera, per your logic, you would advocate lowering all speed limits to 10mph or so, because you must admit, that would be safer than going 65. Is that your logic?

        Not only is that ridiculous, but it is flawed thinking. I think you should refer to ADOT’s page on speed limits: http://www.dot.state.az.us/Highways/Traffic/Speed.asp

        as well as the NMA report which says that photo enforcement has cost Arizona 28 lives. http://photoradarscam.com/ArizonaTicketCamerasCost28Lives2009.pdf

        How can you support an enforcement method that COSTS lives?

      • Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

        pro camera…. your posts make sense and are a breath of fresh air!!! hopefully you will not become attacked so much that you dont come back!!! it appears that stacey with her post below has started by asking if you work for dps… the next is that you work for redflex or ats!! it appears that SCAM was nice to you for awhile but is not strapping on all body armour!!

        i love you man… dont leave us!!

      • Libertad! says:

        I should of said: “to inforce our laws”…understand you point

      • Pro-Camera says:


        Did I say I was advocating lowering speeds to 10mph, no. If you like, if you want to get the speeds raised to 85 on the freeways, so be it. But until law is changed in allowing the director of DPS to set maximum speeds and posting those speeds, that is the law. The problem comes when a select few drivers decide to exceed that speed limit by a much larger portion than the rest of people on the roadway. Having two vehicles using the same roadway and following different speed guidelines will not create a “safe” environment.

        I’m not arguing that in some places, the speeds are set lower than what should be the safe speed. But the freeway speeds are a completely separate issue from the cameras. The freeway speeds in Arizona have not changed except for going UP except for construction zones. The entire I-10 through central Phoenix has been increased to 65 from 55.

        My argument is that I am for the use of cameras to help enforce EXISTING LAWS. Changing speeds is a whole other ballgame with different players.

      • Pro-Camera says:


        “To Enforce Our Laws”

        Even with that, I still believe the cameras are a good thing. They have much more oversight than your average everyday police officer. With an officer, you are to take his word that he clocked you at the speed he claims on the citation. You are to take his word that he tested the calibration of his radar device before his shift or after his last citation (Whatever his department’s policy is on testing with a tuning fork). You are to take his word that the testing of the radar equipment was done and the logs of the equipment was accurately logged by him. And in court, the judge has to take his word that his testing of his radar equipment and his logs are the proof that you were speeding at a given location at a given time. That is ONE PERSON who is in charge of every aspect of evidence gathering in your infraction.

        Now take the cameras. You have the Technicians that calibrate the cameras and their logs in doing so. You have the auditors on the system that can view violations for adjoining lanes of travel and compare violations. You have periodic testing by local police to test the equipment. You have integrity officers in the company to spot check the equipment. You have multiple people that are there to perform checks and balances on other people in the information gathering line. So for purposeful issuance of tickets solely to “Fleece” the law abiding public, it takes many people to be in on the “Scam”.

        Will errors happen, of course they will. But they are few and far between and most are easily corrected by simply mailing in the “notice Of Violation” at your conveniece explaing who the person driving was. They don’t cause an undue burdone on people. You don’t have to miss work to fight a ticket. You don’t have to spend hours on the phone. You don’t have to pay a lawyer. You simply have to drop a letter in the mailbox and you can even request to have the information of removing the citation from your records sent to via email.

      • ProCam, you were implying that you advocated driving slower overall because it increases reaction time. But besides that, you hit on another problem.

        DPS should not be establishing speed limits. That’s what ADOT and traffic engineers are for. However, DPS has estalibhsed their own speed limits with the camera program. DPS has decided that the speed limit is now 11 more than the limits established by ADOT. This is prime example of two vehicles using the same roadway using two different speed guidelines, and that is part of why PE has claimed 28 lives in AZ.

        Almost all members of CF here also advocate for the enforcement of existing laws… with cops instead of cameras.

        But if you are going to talk about the existing laws which does bring into consideration the existing speed limits, you have to also discuss whether the laws (and therefore the limits) are fair and just. As the ADOT speed limit page says: (http://www.dot.state.az.us/Highways/Traffic/Speed.asp)
        2. The normally careful and competent actions of a reasonable person should be considered legal.
        4. Laws cannot be effectively enforced without the consent and voluntary compliance of the public majority.

        As such, any speed limit that is below the 85th percentile is unjust and unfair and unsafe. The problem with the photo program then comes back to the inadequate due process for photo tickets which does not allow a motorist to plead that going with the flow of traffic is not only safe, but also reasonable and prudent. Not to mention the fact that he should never be ticketed to begin with.

      • Pro-Camera says:

        PhotoRadarScam said:
        “Any speed limit that is below the 85th percentile is unjust and unfair and unsafe.”

        Then your argument is not with the cameras, it is with the establishment of speed limits. Then you need to change your name to “CongressARS28_scam” instead. You need to protest to get congress to change the ARS codes which dictate the the director of DPS has the authority to implement Speed limits and post those limits on the roadway. You shouldn’t be protesting the cameras that only make it harder to people who disagree with established speed limit laws to break those laws.

        As for me implying that I advocate driving slower overall to increase reaction time. I also consider the current established speed limits as an acceptable limit. Sure, reaction time would be greatly increased if speed limits were reduced to 10mph. But you and I both know that you are overexagerating what I mean. So let me clarify. I believe that common sense will tell you that if the average speed is lower, this will increase overall reaction time to allow people to avoid accidents that would have been caused by the inattentive drivers. So if people would drive at the current established speed limits, they would have a much safer drive than if they increase their speed and reduce their ability to react to the reckless drivers that they share the road with.

        As fo DPS establishing their own speed limits, sorry you are wrong. The camera company, in an effort to error on the side of caution, decided to allow for a leeway of 10mph, much like many current officers will allow. This is not establishing a new speed limit. You are still speeding if going 66 in a 65, just the cameras will allow you to go without being cited to error on the side of caution.

    • First of all I protest the camera for many reasons, and the whole program and concept is a scam. It would be hard to argue that a program that costs 28 lives would be anything else.

      You continue to perpetuate the widely held misconceptions published by ADOT: http://www.dot.state.az.us/Highways/Traffic/Speed.asp Namely, that speed limit signs will decrease the accident rate and increase safety. ADOT says this is false, yet you continue to preach it like the truth.

      Second, I would like to see the law that allows or specifies that DPS sets the limits. To my knowledge, only ADOT has that power. DPS has taken it upon themselves though to publish a new speed standard of 11 over the posted limit, despite not having the lawful power to do so. In a court of law, it could be successfully argued that a new “de facto” speed limit has been established, especially since they have publicly announced that they will not pursue anything less.

  22. Jeff Hicks says:

    Libertad: Precisely–it’s about the money. If people drive unsafely, penalize them with points, license revocation, jail, whatever escalation is necessary, but why do they need to charge money? Because it’s about the money, of course. Police never address this point, but hide behind the ‘saftey is important’ point–a point no one is arguing.

  23. Marbro says:

    It’s pathetic. I can’t believe these public officials would stoop so low. If they were really so rightous, why not make certain scalpul cuts to Tempe Law Enforcement Budget. Or come up with other long-term solutions that will be more effective in stemming this out of control spending by our state. I wonder what will happen if Scameras arent enough!?
    Are we going to see policemen and gestapo on every corner, just waiting to collect money from people. Seriously, we Arizonans must stand up and “vote no!” against this untolerable, flagerant deception.

    These Gov’t gangsters need to be fired.

  24. Libertad! says:

    Jeff Hick, Marbro, you my brethren are two of a very small population that can use deductive/logical reasoning.

    The American male as we once knew it is a species at the brink of extinction. Quick to anger when his woman or sports team is disrespected but slow to act when the people in control use incrementalism to force him into slavery. He will never challenge those in charge because he knows not the passion that our founding fathers had regarding federal abuse.

    I challenge all on this thread to challenge our friends and family to activate and let these clowns know we are no longer their slaves.

  25. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    libertad!! to the medicine cabinet and beyond!!! just the same old blah blah blah as many preach here… same message different author!!!

    oh…. boys.. laws without consequences for breaking them would be nothing more than a guidline that could or could not be followed~~~

  26. Stacey says:

    Question Again,
    How long have you been with DPS?

    • Pro-Camera says:

      I’m not “With” DPS. I’m not an officer. Just a guy that sees no more wrong in using photo enforcement than there is in using a officer calibrated radar gun.

    • Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

      stacey- how long have you been without a brain?

      he never writes that he was with anybody!!! thats the best you can throw at him after his post?


  27. Matt says:

    It amazes me that so many people have such strong feelings against the use of cameras to make your city streets safer. I’ve lived in Japan for the last 15 years and there are speeding cameras all over the expressways; whether or not they reduce speeding, I don’t know but the one thing is….if you’re not speeding, why is it a problem? Any means the police can use to try and make our lives safer, I’m with them!

    • If you’re not speeding why is it a problem?
      1. Cameras have been shown to have little or no safety effect and to even INCREASE accidents. This affects everybody.
      2. Cameras can and do malfunction. The camera companies will not publish accuracy figures or error rates. Our government refuses to audit them. Innocent people are forced to spend untold amounts of time and money defending themselves. Most simply pay the tickets to avoid the hassle.
      3. Photo enforcement represents the first stop down the path towards a fundamental shift in our country. No more inncocent until proven guilty, no more right-to-confront-your-accuser.

      • Pro-Camera says:


        I read the PDF you linked earlier about how the cameras cost lives. It uses the same data manipulation that this article you are posting about did. Sorry, but that is the pot calling the kettle…

        Second, cameras malfunction. And if/when you are falsely accused, it takes just ONE INCIDENT for a lawyer to get a hold of and subpoena the camera records. Just one person who is falsely accused and ask a lawyer, who would be chomping at the bit to take such a landmark case, to actually subpoena the technician records. To subpoena the Calibration records from before and after the violation. To request the violation rate of that camera during the time between the previous and next calibration. And to subpoena the auditors to testify to their accuracy. To subpoena the integrity officers for the times they tested the equipment.

        This would be an attorney’s joy to be associated to this landmark case. It would be a career maker if you were to beat the cameras.

        Strange how we haven’t heard about this happening, just people that decide to “Pay the Ticket” and complain on sites like these about how corrupt they are.

        Personally, I look at that complaining with a little apprehension.

      • What data manipulation are you talking about? Be specific. Here’s the paragraph you may be referencing:

        Now, Arizona maintains hundreds of red light cameras in at least 11 cities. The “life saving”
        results? From 1995‐2000 Arizona incurred 199 fatal disobeyed signal driver errors. After installing
        numerous RLTCs, 2001‐2006 recorded 227, for a +14% increase in red light violation deaths (+28). For
        comparison, Florida, despite gaining 3 million more drivers, recorded a ‐20% drop in disobeyed signal
        fatal factors from 2001‐2005 (‐125). Florida’s results were best in the nation and accomplished without
        ticket cameras (page 38, Mauz Report).

        The reason why none of this has been challenged in court is because no city or state is willing to fight a ticket to that extent. Why risk having your cash cow program dismantled for ~$200? They just drop the ticket if you fight it too hard.

    • Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

      matt- many of these tin hats are not as much against the cameras as they are anti government.. this “cause” just gives them a place to hang out and bitch about their lives and how they just can not function with the cameras recording them when they drive!!!

    • Marbro says:

      Then go back Japan.
      I like my freedom, without having to look over my shoulder. If you like to drive slow, then stay in the right hand lane. If there is no one on the road and people are driving defensively, I dont see a problem with others driving 10 or even 13 miles over the limit, all people like that are just getting to where they need to go a bit faster.
      For those who support Cameras, HELLO, They do design cars to go as fast as 120 or 140 MPH. Why not take your arguement to Ford, BMW, Mercedes, Porsche, Dodge and many other automakers and try stretching your flawed arguement. BTW, why not just have your pay check garnished every pay period just for cameras and leave the rest of us alone.

  28. road apples says:

    Interesting site. In the Chicago area, Oak Brook to be exact, red light cameras were installed at intersections surrounding a huge mall and money maker, the Oak Brook Shopping Center, for “safety reasons”. After issuing 10,000 tickets in a couple of months for right turn on red violations at one intersection alone, there was such a public outcry that the cameras were removed. Why? Because, according to a Chicago Tribune report, they were concerned that during these trying economic times, there would be such a substantial reduction of potential shoppers, there would be too great of a financial downturn. Wait, I thought it all about “Safety”. Same shit different day.

  29. Stacey says:

    Makes you wonder if there is an increase in traffic through neighborhoods as people try to avoid intersections with cameras.

  30. Definitely an increase in smog. I haven’t finalized calculations, but 42 mobile van units running 8 hours per day every day of the year produces at least 1M pounds of CO2.

    • Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

      well since one of your battle crys is that you want more LE on the streets.. why dont you calculate that genuis!!!

  31. Masoud Safa says:

    Very funny they send me 2 tickets in 3 minute (on 10 miles) i paid . so i never come teravel to that state again . very kindlly police there lol

    • Libertad! says:

      Isn’t it true you can purchase a three pack of tickets at a reduced rate to anticipate future tickets? Can somebody verify that?

  32. That is not true. It was an April 1 joke.

  33. Bill Garvin says:

    Seems as if people don’t like to be forced to accept the consequences of their actions. It seems simple enough to me – don’t speed, and you won’t have to worry about it!

  34. DebbieMiles says:

    I don’t understand all of the bru-haha. Cameras or not, public or private…if people obeyed the law, this would be a non-issue. But there are those out there that will use any and all excuses to justify their own behaviors and blame everyone else for the consequences of those behaviors. I can only assume that the “camera haters” also feel it’s ok to cross on a non cross sign if there’s no cars in sight…sorry, rules are rules…if you don’t like the rules/laws…get yourself elected to a position where you can change those rules/laws…in the meantime..obey them!

  35. Debbie, Bill, it is not about obeying the law if the cameras are malfunctioning. What is the error rate of the camera? How accurate are they? The camera vendors won’t tell you. What we do know is that the cameras make PLENTY of mistakes. Even the innocent are affected. Everytime you drive by a camera, regardless of your speed, it’s like pulling the lever on the slot machine. Watch the videos and read the info at http://PhotoRadarScam.com/malfunctions.php. The guy on the top video has spent over 20 hours and lost 2 days of work defending his erroneous ticket. Just be glad it isn’t you. And also, next time you drive by one (and live), be glad you survived the trip because of the higher accident rates caused by cameras.

  36. Stacey says:

    A corporation in charge of law enforcement is asinine. The objective of a company is to make money. How many companies knowingly sell defective products?

    There are a number of innocent people here and abroad who are having to defend themselves because of these cameras. When it happens to you, we will see how well you like being attacked by your own government:



  37. RPr says:

    It is illegal for a foreign company to give campaign contributions.

    Foreign company Redflex have given over 10 million in Arizona in the last year.

    Where is the investigation?

  38. josh says:

    Just curious…when you get a ticket…you broke the law…period…so what are you upset about? You chose to speed…you chose to go above the posted speed limit, by at least 11mph…period. If anything, these cameras are saving jobs, and letting police tend to the more violent crimes that are happening. The end all and be all of this should be, if you have a problem, don’t speed. Sure…companies want to make a profit, what company does not? Give it a break…you saying a company shouldnt be able to sell its product, or what not, that is facist, not using technology to cut down on speeders, or keep cops patrolling the city streets, or possibly bring in more income to the cities and towns that are already closing schools, and cutting valuable programs.

  39. When you get a ticket because the machine has malfunctioned, you have NOT broken the law and you are falsely accused by a MACHINE.

  40. ThinkerBrain says:

    Why are you guys so worried about some cameras? There is no expectation of privacy when you walk out of your house. I have no problem with cameras. Because, I don’t plan on breaking the law, (speeding, running stop signs, etc), so why fret about cameras ?

    Either it’s illegal to speed or it isn’t. Seems those who are opposed to cameras are the scofflaws who like to speed. AREN’T YOU REALLY SAYING “TAKE THE CAMERAS AWAY SO I CAN BREAK THE LAW, LIKE I ALWAYS HAVE?”

  41. Leon says:

    It is amazing how soldiers are over there in Iraq defending your freedoms and people are pretty much not caring. People who complain about the cameras should be shot. They do not understand that first of all they would not be there if people would just follow the law. Second, if they are going to complain because they got a ticket for going over speed limit, why not let the rapist and murders out cause they broke the law and being punished so why not the speeders. Is it because it is not that big ofa deal. Check the death rate of people killed by people speeding. It simple get your head out of your butt and we won’t need stupid laws or things like that. We create our own problems

    • Libertad! says:

      You my friend have the logic of an eight year old. Complainers will be shot? Are you kidding me? You cite soldiers defending my freedom and then you go make a comment like that? Chairman Mao loved people like you as well as Stalin…

    • Stacey says:

      We have had hundreds of veterans sign the initiave. We have a number of veterans in this organization. We have had Vets complain that the camera flashes are triggering flash backs:


      • Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

        triggering flashbacks!!! did you really write that?
        has anyone followed a truck with a small camper on the back and had the sun reflect off of it? talk about blinding!! the same can happen with some tinted windows!!!
        what should we do about those stacey!! do tell!!!

  42. kandaris says:

    For the Gazillionth time… Most camerafrauders have never gotten a speeding ticket from either a camera, or a cop. By way of disclosure, I have… so what?
    That fact notwithstanding, the “slower” folks among us seem to think that this debate is about those against the use of automated ticketing machines, wanting to speed, avoid punishment, fines, and or refusing to take responsibility for their own actions.
    Well for those folks… try this on for size.
    How about taking responsibility for affecting the policies of your government? This is a democratic republic, and for now, we still have freedom of speech, and the right to civil disobedience. Our founding fathers wisely put this part of our system in place for a reason; as a matter of fact they thought it was so important that that they took care of it FIRST. The problem is that this check and balance on those who would abuse their power only works if we get off our lazy asses and use it. You may disagree with the position that we take here at camerafraud but you are ignoring reality at your own peril if you don’t respect the fact that we are partaking in a time honored tradition that is as American as anything you can think of, and not just for ourselves but for you too.
    The people who are passionate about this issue have spent countless hours of their time and energy to protect the community at large from the patently dishonest and corrupt unholy alliance of private for profit corporations, and our government. At its best, this practice is profiteering, and at its worst it its fascism. I have the greatest respect for them and you should as well. If you are an honest American, you can still appreciate them even while you simultaneously disagree with them. Someday you may have to count on their character to defend your right to say what needs to be said.
    A simple analogy deftly points out one of the major conflicts of interest here. I assume none of you would accept the validity of a ticket from a police officer if you knew that he or she could issue tickets at their discretion but that half of the fine for each ticket they issued was added to their paycheck each week. You would instinctively realize that they could not be trusted to administer the law in a fair and even handed way subject to their oath when constantly at odds with the desire for self enrichment. It takes no mental effort to transpose this concept to the contractors that administer the automated ticketing machines… The same principle applies. Why should we trust them? The unavoidable conclusion is we can’t.
    If our motivation was to get out of anything as individuals, it would be our best move to just pay the fine and move on as so many of the lethargic masses in the state, and the pro camera crowd seem want to do. Let me tell you… it would be much, much easier, and much cheaper for most of us to do so. Dollar for hour it just isn’t economical to spend one’s time volunteering.
    Hmmmm, why then do you think we would do such a thing? Maybe because we see that there is a major principle in play here, and that we are setting a precedent. So anyone else that feels it’s necessary to state the obvious and to log on here and write “Just don’t speed and you won’t have a problem… “ or the like, can go crawl back under the rock you came from until they come to install your own personal rock camera to make sure you are living within the confines of the latest restrictive laws because by that time, this country will not resemble anything you remember as a free country and the blood that has been spilled by your ancestors and mine will have been in vain and you will deserve everything that comes to you then as a result of your complacency and that of your ilk.
    So keep your utterly simplistic rhetoric to yourselves, and if you have something, A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G, truly substantive to say, I welcome well formed arguments, and real points.

    • Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

      if you can not prove that machines in az have sent out tickets based on fraud, then again, it is just accusations on CF’s part that are unfounded!! CF always wants to make reference to things that have happened outside of the borders of arizona!! or things that have nothing to do with tickets being issued!! i am all for shutting down the site

  43. SlowerTrafficRight says:

    A few years ago I vacationed in Europe. I rented a car out of Paris and drove to Germany, then to Switzerland and back. As I drive out of Paris on the highway, the speed limit changed to 130 KPH, which is 80.8 MPH. Now, with speeds like this, I expected to see burning, wrecked out cars on the side of the road at least every few miles. After all, raising the speed limit causes accidents right? Nothing.

    Then I got to Germany and drove on the Autobahn. Unlimited speed! There were parts with a 130 KPH limit, but then it went back to unlimited. Finally, I knew I would see all those burned-out wrecks along the side of the road. Imagine my surprise when there were still none.

    What I did notice, however, was slower traffic keeps right. And I mean religiously. You passed on the left lane then immediately got back into the other lane. There was not one person who didn’t follow this rule. Not one. Trucks, passenger cars, motorcycles, everyone. I was amazed how smoothly traffic could flow.

    Want to reduce traffic accidents? ENFORCE slower traffic keeps right laws that are already on the books. Trucks, people who camp out in the left lane… CITE them. I guarantee traffic will flow more smoothly and with less accidents.

    • Dave says:

      We just can’t compare ourselves with EU nations. There are too many differences. In Switzerland, everybody between 18 and 33 owns and shoots a gun. Every house in that country has guns (yes plural). And thier gun crimes are among the lowest on Earth (even lower than GB with major gun control). I lived in Switzerland, Germany and Austria and know all about their driving and guns.

      Here in America, most states don’t have laws that say drive to the right. They say you “should” and have signs to that effect, but in most states, passing on the right is legal.

      I have been a cop for 14 years in both Los Angeles and Washington State. When the number of accidents rise in a certain area, we write more speeding and other tickets there, and the number of accidents go back down. That is an undisputable fact. When we right more tickets in an area, accidents go up an another, where we are now spending less time. We get frustrated when that happens because we feel we have to be there to control everybody all the time. How about people just obey the laws to begin with, and the accidents will automatically go down.

      It’s not rocket science.

      • Dave, according to ADOT (http://www.dot.state.az.us/Highways/Traffic/Speed.asp), people will naturally drive a comfortable speed NO MATTER WHAT the posted limit is. ADOT also says that any speed enforcement detail results are TEMPORARY, just like you have claimed in your post. If limits are set appropriately to begin with, then the majority of drivers will not be speeding and the roads will be safest.

        The cameras are supposedly here to change driver behavior, but as you said and as ADOT says, the results are only temporary. It is a losing battle.

  44. Vince says:

    Kandaris, are you trying to shut down this site? 🙂

  45. HellofromNJ says:

    I just happened to stumble in from reading about the death of a camera operator. Civilians operate these cameras? Is this some kind of new franchise?

    The government can spin the reasons for these cameras all they want. It’s not about saving lives. It’s about money. If they were worried about saving lives they would outlaw alcohol and cigarettes. They would install speed bumps. If it’s not about money then they would suspend an individuals license for a day or two instead of a fine. What if no one goes 11 mph over the limit? You can bet they will lower it to 9 or 10 over the limit. Then you have fatal accidents where speed wasn’t a factor.

    It will also be a matter of time before those cameras will be used to ticket people for talking on cell phones if AZ has a law against using a cell phone and driving. Maybe a careless driving ticket for someone driving with a sandwhich in one hand and a drink in the other.

    But don’t say it’s about saving lives.

  46. Evapilot says:

    If for some miraculous reason that people somehow vote for the cameras to stay…I’m getting this:


    I’m weary considering that the vast majority of the citizens in this state seem to be 20+ years behind the rest of the world.

  47. Stacey says:

    I am going to get a little fog machine hooked up to my license plate. lol

  48. Doc says:

    Stacey-Gearheads’ll tell ya’ about this li’l gadget that makes your Lic. Plate “disappear”! Really! It’s a solenoid operated panel that th’ plate bolts on to. You hit th’ switch, & th’ panel flips up outta’ site!

    Can’t Remember where I put my plate-Doc from Prescott

  49. This is a good tip particularly to those fresh to the blogosphere.
    A must read article!

Leave a Reply to Law A. Bidingcitizen Cancel reply


WordPress.com Logo


Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: